Importer To Pay Anti-Dumping Duty - Jurishour No. 1 Latest

The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that importers are liable to pay anti-dumping duty on Sensitised Aluminium Plates.

The bench of Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that the notification 25/2014 had extended anti-dumping duty on PS aluminum plates originating in or exported from China PR at the rate of .22 per USD per kg for a period of 5 years. It becomes clear that though the plates imported by the respondent are not proved to be CTCP aluminium plates but these admittedly are pre sensitised aluminium plates against which also there is an imposition of anti dumping duty w.e.f. 10.03.2014 till 09.03.2019.

Background

The respondent-importer imported a consignment covered under Bill of Entry filed through their customs broker and Clearing for importing goods declaring them as Aluminum PS Printing Plates classifying them under CTH 84425020.

The department based on the specific intelligence about misdeclaration being committed by the importer, examined the container covered under the said Bill of Entry in the presence of representatives of the Customs Broker of the appellant and formed the opinion that goods/plates imported by the appellants are CTCP plates however for comparison they drew the sample and sent the same for testing initially to the department of Printing Technology, Pusa Polytechnic, New Delhi.

Pay Anti-Dumping Duty — Pay Anti- Dumping Duty

A test report dated 03.06.2015 was received confirming the samples in question to be CTCP Printing Plates. But the report was withdrawn as the testing was out sourced for want of proper infrastructure with the said Institute. The Central Revenue Control laboratory, Pusa (CRCL) also refused to give a Report as they have any facility to test on those four parameters as were demanded by the department.

Finally, with mutual consensus, the samples were sent to a private lab namely M/s. Don Bosco Technical Institute. The test report from M/s. Don Bosco dated 14.05.2016 reported that the goods are the aluminium plates with PS coating for printing purposes and the plates are CTCP printing plates.

The report denied the plates to be violet printing plates to be thermal printing plates. It was also reported that after testing the plates on a CTCP machine, that the plates are found sensitive to normal ultraviolet light and can be developed manually with PS developer.

Based on that report and on the Notification No. 51/2012- Cus. (ABD) dated 03.12.2012 which imposes anti-dumping duty on digital offset Printing Plates (CTCP) and the Notification No. 25/2014-Cus. (ABD) dated 09.06.2014 which imposes anti-dumping duty even on PS Printing pre-sensitised aluminium plates department alleged that the appellant had evaded the payment of anti-dumping duty imposed on the goods imported by them.

The department opined that the goods have wrongly been declared under CTH 8442 as they are classifiable under CTH 3701. The later entry attracts the Basic Customs Duty (BCD) at the rate of 10%. The appellant is alleged to have mis-declared the nomenclature/classification to evade the payment of BCD.

A Show Cause notice was served upon the appellant proposing to recover the differential BCD on account of mis-declaration to be recovered from the appellant. The differential anti-dumping duty amounting to Rs.23,33,840/- was also proposed to be recovered.

The penalty under Section 112(a) and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 was also proposed to be imposed. The proposal was confirmed. The appeal filed by the importer against the order has been allowed while setting aside the findings in the Order.

Issue Raised – Whether the Importer is Liable to Pay Anti-Dumping Duty

The issue raised was whether the goods imported by the respondent-importer have rightly been reported as CTCP printing plates attracting anti- dumping duty in terms of Notification No. 51/2012 dated 03.12.2012 as is the case of department or the goods are the aluminum PS printing plates to which there is no anti-dumping duty liability as is the case of the respondent.

Yet another issue raised was whether the goods imported are liable to be classified under CTH 3701 as alleged by the department instead of CTH 84425020 as declared by the respondent the respondent is liable to pay additional BCD.

Arguments

The department contended that the issue in the appeal pertains to classification as well as imposition of anti-dumping duty pursuant to Notification No.51/2012 dated 03.12.2012 and Notification No.25/2014 dated 09.06.2014 on the goods imported by the respondent-importer. The respondent by wrongly declaring the imported goods as Pre Sensitized (PS) aluminium plates has wrongly classified them under CTH 84425020 instead of classifying those under CTH 3701.

The department contended that BCD under CTH 8442 is at the rate of 7.5% whereas under CTH 3701 it is at the rate of 10%. The differential amount of BCD thus has been evaded by the appellant and despite the mandate of the aforesaid both notifications vide which anti-dumping duty at the rate of 4.87 USD per square meter was imposed on the goods, it has been evaded by the assessee.

The importer contended that the cross-examination of technical person of M/s. Don Bosco Technical Institute has falsified the case of the department that the plates in question are CTCP plates on which is imposed anti-dumping duty in terms of Notification No. 51/2012. The findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) on this aspect have been reiterated as given in Para 5.3 of the Order-in-Appeal. The sole basis to hold the imported goods to be CTCP plates was the test report when the same has been found unreliable, there remains no ground to differ from the declaration made by the respondent-importer in the Bill of Entry.

Conclusion

The tribunal held that the entire demand of anti dumping duty on the impugned goods has wrongly been set aside. The anti-dumping duty at the rate as prescribed in Notification No. 25/2014 is still liable to be recovered from the respondent- importer.

The tribunal while allowing the appeal held that the anti dumping duty at the rate .22 USD per kg is ordered to be recovered from the respondent-importer. In addition the differential BCD amounting to Rs. 1,43,233/- along with the interest is also held to be the respondent-importer’s liability. Finally, we restore the original order imposing the penalty of Rs. 2.40 lakhs under Section 112(a) and the same amount of penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act as was imposed by the original adjudicating authorities.